Motion

[studiot]

Thank you swansont for your continued lucid explanation. +1

 

It puts me in mind of something.

 

I recently installed the first of a new generation of laser printers for someone.

 

Lasers suitable for printer duty were once bulky and expensive to buy so the photocopier or printer contained a moving head incorporating that one expensive part and mechanically tracked or scanned it along a guide.

 

Technology has moved on and laser units are now cheap and miniaturised.

 

The latest printers have replaced the scanning head with a row of microlasers and the scanning is performed electronically, activating them in sequence without moving parts.

[Tim88]

That's radiation from the frequency synthesizer that is absorbed by the atoms. Not emitted. You had posited "the creation of EM waves inside atomic clock atoms" based on "the creation of an EM wave by means of an electron jump" These clocks are not detecting EM waves created by (or in) the clock atoms. [..]

Transotions can be emission, but they can also be absorption. [..] The atoms are used as a discriminator, not a source. [..]

 

That's exactly what I meant with my Ferrari engineer example.

[..] Furthermore, the oscillations that are measured are not based on motion.

[..]

[..] They act like they're ticking, but there's nothing moving— they're just in whatever state they're in. [..]

 

And that's what the topic is here: you claim something that you did not prove and even doesn't make any sense to me; oscillation without motion is a contradiction in terms. I therefore insist: please explain how to create such oscillations without electron motion. I know of no such model, be it emission or absorption.

 

PS. technically it's impossible to prove what really goes on inside an atom, but it will be interesting to understand your motionless oscillation model.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Tim88

[studiot]

 

Tim88

And that's what the topic is here: you claim something that you did not prove and even doesn't make any sense to me; oscillation without motion is a contradiction in terms. I therefore insist: please explain how to create such oscillations without electron motion. I know of no such model, be it emission or absorption.

 

He already did

 

 

swansont

the state vector oscillates,

 

Consider standard traffic lights

 

The 'state vector' cycles, but the lights do not go anywhere.

 

[swansont]

That's exactly what I meant with my Ferrari engineer example.

I'm not relying on pedantry here. You made a claim about EM emission from the atoms. That's flat-out not what is being measured. You also claimed that the motion involved was an electron transition. As I have pointed out, the period of operation of the clock where there is oscillation does not involve an electron transition of any sort.

 

And that's what the topic is here: you claim something that you did not prove and even doesn't make any sense to me; oscillation without motion is a contradiction in terms.

That's what can happen when you insist on interpreting quantum mechanics in terms of classical mechanics.

 

I therefore insist: please explain how to create such oscillations without electron motion. I know of no such model, be it emission or absorption.

 

PS. technically it's impossible to prove what really goes on inside an atom, but it will be interesting to understand your motionless oscillation model.

The electrons can't have defined trajectories, because we know what the effects would be from that and we don't observe that behavior. The QM model has electrons as waves, and in this case standing waves. There is no motion. You are insisting there is, so you fall under the same reliance on models as I do. If it's impossible to know for me, it's impossible to know for you, too. But at least I have a working model.

[Tim88]

 

He already did

 

 

Consider standard traffic lights

 

The 'state vector' cycles, but the lights do not go anywhere.

 

 

He certainly did not. Traffic lights don't even oscillate.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Tim88

[studiot]

Gosh, Tim you are so difficult to help.

 

 

 

 

He certainly did not. Traffic lights don't even oscillate.

 

 

Here is the simplified version with annotation.

 

 

 

 

Below YOUR original statement

Tim88

And that's what the topic is here: you claim something that you did not prove and even doesn't make any sense to me; oscillation without motion is a contradiction in terms. I therefore insist: please explain how to create such oscillations without electron motion. I know of no such model, be it emission or absorption.

 

Below My reply

He already did

 

Below My reference to where swansont already told you.

Quote

 

swansont

the state vector oscillates,

 

Below My further helpful example explaining state vectors.

 

 

Consider standard traffic lights

 

The 'state vector' cycles, but the lights do not go anywhere.

 

My encouraging comment.

I will leave you and swansont to argue whether my word cycle or oscillate is more appropriate for a discrete state vector

 

 

 

 

[Tim88]

I'm not relying on pedantry here. You made a claim about EM emission from the atoms. That's flat-out not what is being measured. You also claimed that the motion involved was an electron transition. As I have pointed out, the period of operation of the clock where there is oscillation does not involve an electron transition of any sort.

 

 

That's what can happen when you insist on interpreting quantum mechanics in terms of classical mechanics.

 

 

The electrons can't have defined trajectories, because we know what the effects would be from that and we don't observe that behavior. The QM model has electrons as waves, and in this case standing waves. There is no motion. You are insisting there is, so you fall under the same reliance on models as I do. If it's impossible to know for me, it's impossible to know for you, too. But at least I have a working model.

 

That's what happens when philosophy and hard science are mixed up. The "standing waves do not involve motion" mistake was already corrected in this thread and your model is an abstraction because atoms are black boxes to us.

 

Sure I cannot prove that motion is involved; instead, I was looking for examples of which we are really certain that no motion is involved. But none of us could find one.

 

And here we come to the heart of the matter: where Mach was agnostic about atoms because they were not observed, you go one step further and positively state that oscillations and energy transfer happen without motion because you don't see it and quantum mechanics is agnostic about it.

[..]

I am more interested in the practicalities such as they can be to the question . What do current physical observations tell us about this connection?

 

I was taken aback to learn recently that atomic decay which is used to measure time does this without what I would call movement or motion.[..]

 

In conclusion, observations don't tell us that your hunch is wrong; we can only provide examples of physical observations in which we do not (and perhaps cannot) know if motion is involved.

 

Gosh, Tim you are so difficult to help.

 

My encouraging comment.

I will leave you and swansont to argue whether my word cycle or oscillate is more appropriate for a discrete state vector

 

Studiot you are mistaken: I am not the OP who appears to have already left the room - and I'm not going to waste my time over words either.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Tim88

[swansont]

That's what happens when philosophy and hard science are mixed up. The "standing waves do not involve motion" mistake was already corrected in this thread and your model is an abstraction because atoms are black boxes to us.

Your post showed that traveling waves can be used to construct standing waves. Not that they must.

 

Sure I cannot prove that motion is involved; instead, I was looking for examples of which we are really certain that no motion is involved. But none of us could find one.

 

There was also radioactive decay.

 

And here we come to the heart of the matter: where Mach was agnostic about atoms because they were not observed, you go one step further and positively state that oscillations and energy transfer happen without motion because you don't see it and quantum mechanics is agnostic about it.

 

 

In conclusion, observations don't tell us that your hunch is wrong; we can only provide examples of physical observations in which we do not (and perhaps cannot) know if motion is involved.

 

If you make a claim that time must involve motion, you need to be able to definitively show that motion is involved.

[geordief]

 

 

If you make a claim that time must involve motion, you need to be able to definitively show that motion is involved.

If I have understood this right we cannot observe classical motion at the quantum level.

 

Is it fair to say that the quantum level is more fundamental than the classical level and so it is "bye bye" to "motion" when we come to the nutty gritty or do we leave the door ajar for its re emergence at what might be called a sub quantum level at some point (never?) in the future?

 

Is there enough work to be going on with understanding quantum effects without " going backwards" to bring in ideas that have currency in the classical arena?

 

Are such classical ideas an impediment (or a complete irrelevance) to our understanding of quantum theory?

Edited September 28, 2016 by geordief

[swansont]

If I have understood this right we cannot observe classical motion at the quantum level.

It's actually more than that. There are situations where you cannot have classical motion at the quantum level. An electron in an atom, for example: it would have to have some sort of orbit, and an accelerating charge radiates, and this can't happen with quantized energy levels.

 

Is it fair to say that the quantum level is more fundamental than the classical level and so it is "bye bye" to "motion" when we come to the nutty gritty or do we leave the door ajar for its re emergence at what might be called a sub quantum level at some point (never?) in the future?

It is more fundamental. There's no indication that anything new (especially classical) happens on a finer scale. The "fuzziness" of QM that manifests itself in wave functions and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tell us that there's no underlying classical behavior.

 

Is there enough work to be going on with understanding quantum effects without " going backwards" to bring in ideas that have currency in the classical arena?

 

Are such classical ideas an impediment (or a complete irrelevance) to our understanding of quantum theory?

Classical ideas can be an impediment. There are a number of quantum effects that are explained in terms of classical physics that just aren't right, but since they are based on classical explanations they are more easily digested. The notion of "borrowing" energy in quantum tunneling is an example. That's an explanation that's classical at its root — that you still go over the barrier; because you borrowed energy, you could do that. But QM says nothing of the sort.

[Tim88]

Your post showed that traveling waves can be used to construct standing waves. Not that they must.

 

 

There was also radioactive decay.

 

 

If you make a claim that time must involve motion, you need to be able to definitively show that motion is involved.

 

Yes indeed! Radioactive decay is a similar "black box". Science teaches us to be agnostic.

I assumed that time involves motion for the same reason that I find it plausible that if aliens exist, they are made from matter - merely based on experience. I cannot prove that spirits don't exist or that, contrary to macroscopic experience, motionless physical processes could exist that we cannot observe.

[studiot]

 

Tim88

I assumed that time involves motion

 

I assume this is an admission of being wrong.

 

Radioactivity is usually the first example brought up to demonstrate time without motion, but there are others.

You agreed with me that traffic lights 'do not go anywhere' i.e. they do not exhibit motion.

 

Yet they are cyclic in time (arguing whether they are a wave or not is pointless) and knowledge of that cycle would allow an observer to measure time by the state of the lights.

Admittedly it would be a crude clock, but a motionless clock nonetheless.

[Mordred]

Not sure I will ever understand why people that think time requires motion. Always forget time is also a measure of duration.

 

How long does "a" stay in the same state..?

 

A doesn't move yet we still measure that it didn't move in time "x"

Edited September 28, 2016 by Mordred

[swansont]

Yes indeed! Radioactive decay is a similar "black box". Science teaches us to be agnostic.

I assumed that time involves motion for the same reason that I find it plausible that if aliens exist, they are made from matter - merely based on experience. I cannot prove that spirits don't exist or that, contrary to macroscopic experience, motionless physical processes could exist that we cannot observe.

Your experience is classical in nature, though. It doesn't include e.g. walking through a doorway and diffracting. We have plenty of examples of classical physics abjectly failing when dealing with quantum mechanics. So your analogy is skewed. You are doing the equivalent of assuming that alien life is also carbon and DNA based.

[geordief]

Not sure I will ever understand why people that think time requires motion. Always forget time is also a measure of duration.

 

How long does "a" stay in the same state..?

 

A doesn't move yet we still measure that it didn't move in time "x"

If you are talking about something that is not in the quantum realm there is no such thing as the "same state" is there? Don't all such states evolve all the time?

[studiot]

If you are talking about something that is not in the quantum realm there is no such thing as the "same state" is there? Don't all such states evolve all the time?

 

It doesn't have to be quantum.

 

For traffic lights showing red is a state as is showing green.

 

The traffic light state vector is a list of all such states.

 

Red

Red and amber

green

amber

(red)

[geordief]

 

It doesn't have to be quantum.

 

For traffic lights showing red is a state as is showing green.

 

The traffic light state vector is a list of all such states.

 

Red

Red and amber

green

amber

(red)

Yes I saw you were giving that example earlier. But the transitions are all gradual aren't they? And the "states " are mental constructs aren't they?

 

I took it as an analogy for the quantum states (which are beyond my understanding ).

[studiot]

Yes I saw you were giving that example earlier. But the transitions are all gradual aren't they? And the "states " are mental constructs aren't they?

 

I took it as an analogy for the quantum states (which are beyond my understanding ).

 

No, you are overthinking this.

 

There's nothing 'mental' about traffic lights (Unless you got that question wrong in your driving test?)

 

 

State diagrams feature importantly in digital electronics, though it's true man can't match the speeds attainable by quantum processes.

These are idealised human constructs.

[geordief]

 

No, you are overthinking this.

 

There's nothing 'mental' about traffic lights (Unless you got that question wrong in your driving test?)

 

 

State diagrams feature importantly in digital electronics, though it's true man can't match the speeds attainable by quantum processes.

These are idealised human constructs.

OK . No I failed my 6 tests for many different reasons but never for that one. Thankfully all that is behind me now.(7th time lucky).

 

By the way, Tim88 I do indeed "leave the room" (post#57) in this and other threads from time to time even though I am the OP . That can be because I recognize when I am out of my depth as I surely am when it comes to quantum mechanics-and many other subjects.

 

If I do not resist the temptation to post about matters of which I am ignorant I will end up confusing myself and annoying others.

[studiot]

OK . No I failed my 6 tests for many different reasons but never for that one. Thankfully all that is behind me now.(7th time lucky).

 

By the way, Tim88 I do indeed "leave the room" (post#57) in this and other threads from time to time even though I am the OP . That can be because I recognize when I am out of my depth as I surely am when it comes to quantum mechanics-and many other subjects.

 

If I do not resist the temptation to post about matters of which I am ignorant I will end up confusing myself and annoying others.

 

 

But hopefully you have gained something from our little exchange of pleasantries ?

 

I know I have and have just awarded myself a whisky in honour of a successful conversation.

 

[geordief]

 

 

But hopefully you have gained something from our little exchange of pleasantries ?

 

I know I have and have just awarded myself a whisky in honour of a successful conversation.

 

Very much . In fact I appreciate all kinds of response I get to my posts whether positive or negative.

 

But it is true ,sometimes the exchanges go well over my head and my levels of concentration and so I do not always follow a thread all the way through even when the OP was my own....

 

It is embarrassing to be caught out that way if I post as if I have been following all the replies (also rude).

 

I am under the impression that many of the posters here are able to read and take in most of the entire thread (provided it is not too long or goes back too far) but that would be beyond me for the most part- having more of an eclectic character perhaps.

 

chin-chin

[Tim88]

 

I assume this is an admission of being wrong.

 

Radioactivity is usually the first example brought up to demonstrate time without motion, but there are others.

You agreed with me that traffic lights 'do not go anywhere' i.e. they do not exhibit motion.

 

Yet they are cyclic in time (arguing whether they are a wave or not is pointless) and knowledge of that cycle would allow an observer to measure time by the state of the lights.

Admittedly it would be a crude clock, but a motionless clock nonetheless.

 

That's a again a wrong assumption. Traffic lights are a very poor example for oscillation, and anyway they work on electron motion.

 

I'll clarify this here once more.

Depending on our definition of time as well as our philosophy, one may conclude that certainly, even by mere definition, "motion and time are joined at the hip", as geordief put it; however one may alternatively conceive of time without motion, and speculate that this might correspond to physical reality.

 

With that I leave this discussion;

[..]

 

I am under the impression that many of the posters here are able to read and take in most of the entire thread (provided it is not too long or goes back too far) but that would be beyond me for the most part- having more of an eclectic character perhaps.

 

chin-chin

 

Yes, chin-chin